Prophylaxis to Prevent Cardiotoxicity in Patients Receiving Anthracycline for Breast Cancer: A Combined Bayesian and Frequentist Network Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.
Breast cancer
CTRCD
Cardioprotection
Cardiotoxicity
Network meta-analysis
Journal
Heart, lung & circulation
ISSN: 1444-2892
Titre abrégé: Heart Lung Circ
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 100963739
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Jan 2024
05 Jan 2024
Historique:
received:
10
11
2022
revised:
31
10
2023
accepted:
03
11
2023
medline:
7
1
2024
pubmed:
7
1
2024
entrez:
6
1
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The benefits in survivorship gained with anthracycline (ANT)-based chemotherapies for breast cancer are unfortunately mitigated for some patients by irreversible cardiotoxicity. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have explored multiple cardioprotection options, however, it remains unclear which drug is most effective in preserving left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). This study aimed to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis, using Bayesian and frequentist approaches, of RCTs evaluating cardioprotective agents. Two authors searched four databases (CENTRAL, Cochrane Reviews, MEDLINE, SCOPUS), to find RCTs evaluating cardioprotective agents. Trial populations were limited to patients with breast cancer without prior ANT exposure. The primary outcome was mean LVEF change pre and post ANT dosing. Our primary analysis utilised a Bayesian approach, while our sensitivity analysis used frequentist methodology (Prospero registration number CRD42020199580). From 4,007 search results, we identified 12 RCTs, with their various trial arms considered separately-nine beta-blocker (BB), two angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor /angiotensin receptor blockers [(AA)+BB=AABB], one AA, one spironolactone, one statin-evaluating 1,126 patients (age 50.5 years). Bayesian network meta-analysis showed no difference in LVEF preservation between AA (1.3%, 95% credible interval [-0.20, 2.9]), BB (0.77, [-0.21, 1.8]), AABB (0.84 [-1.1, 2.8]), spironolactone (0.72, [-2.3, 3.7]) or statin (0.60, [-2.4, 3.6]) when compared against placebo. However, the frequentist analysis showed benefits from using AA (mean difference, 1.32% [0.32, 2.33]) and BB (mean difference, 0.76% [0.12, 1.4]). There is insufficient evidence to support prophylactic cardioprotection to prevent EF reduction. However, frequentist analysis suggested that AA or BBs provide cardioprotection. Thus, for those already on other anti-hypertensives, switching to AA or BBs could be considered.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The benefits in survivorship gained with anthracycline (ANT)-based chemotherapies for breast cancer are unfortunately mitigated for some patients by irreversible cardiotoxicity. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have explored multiple cardioprotection options, however, it remains unclear which drug is most effective in preserving left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). This study aimed to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis, using Bayesian and frequentist approaches, of RCTs evaluating cardioprotective agents.
METHODS
METHODS
Two authors searched four databases (CENTRAL, Cochrane Reviews, MEDLINE, SCOPUS), to find RCTs evaluating cardioprotective agents. Trial populations were limited to patients with breast cancer without prior ANT exposure. The primary outcome was mean LVEF change pre and post ANT dosing. Our primary analysis utilised a Bayesian approach, while our sensitivity analysis used frequentist methodology (Prospero registration number CRD42020199580).
RESULTS
RESULTS
From 4,007 search results, we identified 12 RCTs, with their various trial arms considered separately-nine beta-blocker (BB), two angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor /angiotensin receptor blockers [(AA)+BB=AABB], one AA, one spironolactone, one statin-evaluating 1,126 patients (age 50.5 years). Bayesian network meta-analysis showed no difference in LVEF preservation between AA (1.3%, 95% credible interval [-0.20, 2.9]), BB (0.77, [-0.21, 1.8]), AABB (0.84 [-1.1, 2.8]), spironolactone (0.72, [-2.3, 3.7]) or statin (0.60, [-2.4, 3.6]) when compared against placebo. However, the frequentist analysis showed benefits from using AA (mean difference, 1.32% [0.32, 2.33]) and BB (mean difference, 0.76% [0.12, 1.4]).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to support prophylactic cardioprotection to prevent EF reduction. However, frequentist analysis suggested that AA or BBs provide cardioprotection. Thus, for those already on other anti-hypertensives, switching to AA or BBs could be considered.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38184425
pii: S1443-9506(23)04412-8
doi: 10.1016/j.hlc.2023.11.004
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Funding Sources This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.